Facing Reality: Two Truths about Race in America (racism, Murray, military)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, none of that, thanks. All we need is meritocracy and the rule of law.
We're already there. Just continue keeping the level of minorities in prison at around 40% or higher. Most people elected to office are not ordinary average citizens.
And yet another group has succeeded in a relatively short timeframe from when they were being exterminated like insects.
Well, keep up the same victimhood mentality, and see where the black community is in 10 years, 20 years etc.
Jews have also had a cohesive, functional, self-affirming culture for the last 3000 years. American blacks have a "chit'lin' culture" of the entrails of WASP culture that is disfunctional and self-debasing.
We have no issue with identifying people with physical ability. Professional sports teams employ the highest skilled individuals at each position. Granted some leagues are hamstrung by salary limitations. But a skilled player will always beat out a lesser skilled athlete. Because the people making the team decisions and the fans in the stands realize that not everyone is as talented as the next person.
Yet in different arenas (education, workplace for example) we are less inclined to accept that 1 person has increased ability over another individual. Why else do some insist on equality of outcome? Lowering standard to increase participation does more harm than help. It leaves those struggling to overcome challenges frustrated. It grates on the more capable that have to shoulder a larger part of the collective burden due to uneven participation.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 1 day ago)
35,579 posts, read 17,923,325 times
Reputation: 50612
I'm not sure how this book is different from The Bell Curve, which I read when it was wildly popular decades ago.
The problem here, is this is a slippery, slippery slope.
Once you decide that on average, Asians are most capable of doing well in American schools, and then whites, and then hispanics and then blacks, what have you got? You have a very, very broad brush by which to color your expectations of different students whom you haven't even met.
You have a school principal who, looking at a black child struggling academically, might just toss her hands in the air and say well, we tried. Instead of having a firm goal of getting that child to success.
Additionally, there are enough unintelligent and lazy white people, and enough hard working brilliant black and hispanic people, that you have to say - what's the point, EXACTLY, of announcing that group wise, you can draw some differences?
How will that help anyone succeed and reach their full potential?
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 1 day ago)
35,579 posts, read 17,923,325 times
Reputation: 50612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monello
We have no issue with identifying people with physical ability. Professional sports teams employ the highest skilled individuals at each position. Granted some leagues are hamstrung by salary limitations. But a skilled player will always beat out a lesser skilled athlete. Because the people making the team decisions and the fans in the stands realize that not everyone is as talented as the next person.
Yet in different arenas (education, workplace for example) we are less inclined to accept that 1 person has increased ability over another individual. Why else do some insist on equality of outcome? Lowering standard to increase participation does more harm than help. It leaves those struggling to overcome challenges frustrated. It grates on the more capable that have to shoulder a larger part of the collective burden due to uneven participation.
We have kids who are invited to TAG, who are offered accelerated classes, or AP classes, and who are given scholarships because we see they have better intellectual ability.
We have kids who are told they need to take STAAR tutoring sessions even though they haven't taken the STAAR yet, because the teachers know they have less intellectual ability and aren't likely to pass. We recognize that and try to help.
We have bosses who promote some employees faster than others, or in having to downsize a part of the company will make an effort to place a few of the workers in other company positions because they're better workers.
The problem here, is this is a slippery, slippery slope.
Once you decide that on average, Asians are most capable of doing well in American schools, and then whites, and then hispanics and then blacks, what you have got? You have a very, very broad brush by which to color your expectations of different students.
People DO have different abilities, we all understand that very well until it comes to intellectual capability where it's anathema because....feelings?
If someone is better at chess than you, do you treat them worse? If someone is better at playing the violin, do you treat them differently?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC
You have a school principal who, looking at a black child struggling academically, might just toss her hands in the air and say well, we tried. Instead of having a firm goal of getting that child to success.
At some point, the vast majority of people of all colors hit an academic wall. Calculus II in colleges is often required for many non-math oriented major paths...because it's a great filter so people don't waste their time trying to go pre-med if they can't understand it.
That's okay...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC
Additionally, there are enough unintelligent and lazy white people, and enough hard working brilliant black and hispanic people, that you have to say - what's the point, EXACTLY, of announcing that group wise, you can draw some differences?
Well you hit the nail on the head with this one, which hamstrings your own argument. If conclusive evidence was presented that whites (for example) on average are more academically gifted and capable than blacks (for example) we will have learned....nothing.
Because the bell curves that depict the capabilities of these populations will STILL have substantial overlap, such that you couldn't meet a black/white person and discern their intelligence just by their skin color. Murray actually makes this point rather lucidly in his book if you were to read it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC
How will that help anyone succeed and reach their full potential?
Some people don't have the capability to be computer programmers but might be excellent carpenters, I hope you agree with that. By learning your academic ceiling, you can shift to another discipline where you can excel. I think everyone intuitively understands this.
But when blacks, on average, seem to have a lower ceiling...owing to racism of course...they are kept in that field and given accommodations like lower expectations and standards when they should realize they can't do it legit and shift to a different discipline.
Look up the studies on affirmative action "scholars" who do dramatically worse than those who go to community colleges because they only get in elite colleges because of their skin color and the coursework is too difficult for them.
I'm not sure how this book is different from The Bell Curve, which I read when it was wildly popular decades ago.
The problem here, is this is a slippery, slippery slope.
Once you decide that on average, Asians are most capable of doing well in American schools, and then whites, and then hispanics and then blacks, what you have got? You have a very, very broad brush by which to color your expectations of different students whom you haven't even met.
You have a school principal who, looking at a black child struggling academically, might just toss her hands in the air and say well, we tried. Instead of having a firm goal of getting that child to success.
Additionally, there are enough unintelligent and lazy white people, and enough hard working brilliant black and hispanic people, that you have to say - what's the point, EXACTLY, of announcing that group wise, you can draw some differences?
How will that help anyone succeed and reach their full potential?
Every path is a slippery slope which is why we end up with a two party system so we don’t go down some disastrous endless fall in to a bottomless pit of hell. On the right is too much control, totalitarianism, complete control of thought even down to pre-thought. It comes with a disgust feature that’s creates “cockroaches” of the enemy. It appeals to both our protective and obsessive tendencies as humans. The far left is total chaos and constant revolution always destroying everything that was built up before it in a quest for a “better way of knowing.” We’ve managed to do pretty good by using the ability to communicate to not go down either of those paths. I fear we’re past that point now and both sides are recognizing there’s no point in talking anymore. The left has complete control and appears to think it’s just going to run a psychological operation on the country and no one is going to be any wiser.
Maybe the business titans thought they’d control this revolution like they were going to do in the last racial reckoning revolution. No reason for alarm though. Nothing to see here. No parallels. No growing fever pitch.
No matter what multiethnic country you examine, there will almost assuredly be "race oriented" cultures. Different cultures have different interests, priorities and values and therefore have different levels of employment, wealth, even incarceration. The problem is, this dynamic is not accepted and usually not even recognized yet it is a far bigger factor than are inherent racial differences.
I don't disagree that cultural dynamics are a much bigger factor than genetics. It leaves me to ask you this. Why do you think there are people who keep harping about "genetics is a factor", as if genetics is the biggest factor?
I don't disagree that cultural dynamics are a much bigger factor than genetics. It leaves me to ask you this. Why do you think there are people who keep harping about "genetics is a factor", as if genetics is the biggest factor?
Are you talking about the old “nature vs nurture” debate? Studies have shown it is about 50/50.
Are you talking about the old “nature vs nurture” debate? Studies have shown it is about 50/50.
I'm talking about "human biodiversity", you know, the stuff people like Steve Sailer and Charles Murray keep talking about.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
